Posted
by
timothyon Saturday May 18, 2013 @06:19PM
from the through-a-hazy-fog-of-snark dept.

theodp writes "The last thing Wired's Mat Honan remembered before awaking on the self-driving boat that dropped him on the island was sitting through a four-hour Google I/O keynote in Moscone Center and hearing Google CEO Larry Page promote a vision of a utopia where society could be free to innovate and experiment, unencumbered by government regulations or social norms. 'Welcome to Google Island,' a naked-save-for-a-pair-of-eyeglasses Larry Page tells Honan. 'As soon as you hit Google's territorial waters, you came under our jurisdiction, our terms of service. Our laws — or lack thereof — apply here. By boarding our self-driving boat you granted us the right to all feedback you provide during your journey. This includes the chemical composition of your sweat. Remember when I said at I/O that maybe we should set aside some small part of the world where people could experiment freely and examine the effects? I wasn't speaking theoretically. This place exists. We built it.'"

Both apple and MS now have smartphone and locked down arm based tablet platforms where they force people into app stores from which they take a substantial cut. Both apple and MS still have traditional desktop/laptop (and in MS's case bulky x86 based tablet) platforms where for the moment they still let you install apps in the traditional way. However even on those platforms afaict they limit some features of the platform to store apps only.

The difference is of course that with apple nowadays the desktops/laptops are a sideline and the phones/locked down arm based tablets are the main thrust of the buisness. With MS the OS for phones/locked down arm based tablets is a sideline and the desktop/laptop OS is the main thrust of the buisness.

Metro apps can only be installed from the store last i checked. They have made it inconvenient for non savvy users to use anything but metro and they get very confused and upset when using metro because they have a hard enough time setting the time on a vcr.

...and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constra

First off, way to be homophobic! And bravo to everyone who voted the AC up for it!
Second: there are a large number of star trek fanfics that have homosexual themes. They're coming from somewhere, folks.

You seriously believe that a gay person can't be homophobic?
That's so naive that it's almost sweet (if it weren't so flawed).
Fact is that many of the most homophobic bigots in this world are themselves gay.

"Gay" is such a weird label. People who openly profess to being 'gay' can go around claiming that other people are 'gay' and use it to as the basis to ridicule them. Yet it's supposed to be something that we all accept in one another. Its like peoples' copulation preferences are something the defines them and must direct the rest of their lives. Really, get over it.

This appears to be a story depicting a sort-of utopian future (of limited extent - an island) where there are no rules.

I'm not sure from the context whether the author is in favor or against the concept. It somehow feels like he is knitting together several uncomfortable consequences of "no rules" in an attempt to paint that future as dystopian.

The thing people always miss, the important overlooked point, is that no one wants a state where there are no rules. What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

The most basic human right is to have sovereignty over ones own body. Mat Honan's article shows us that with no rules, outsiders would be able to do anything they wanted to us - even against our consent. It would be the strong doing whatever they wanted to the weak. Typical, obvious, and predictable - we have many examples of lawless societies where the strong do just that.

Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good: rules about drugs, prostitution, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and yes, wearing clothes. We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".

If you would like to read about a rule-less society which enforces basic human rights and is a little less dystopian, try "Manna" [marshallbrain.com] by Marshall Brain. It's an easy read and an interesting story.

Another good example is "Voyage From Yesteryear" [wikipedia.org] by James Hogan. A little longer and with more drama, but essentially a rule-less society which enforces basic human rights.

What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

That's not what most people want at all. Most people want roads, education, defense, a framework for business, etc. etc.

It's what Libertarians say they want. Though each wants only the human rights that happen to serve them individually.

We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".

The problem is that huge amounts of what we do infringes on others rights. There's very often a balance between rights of one person and rights of another. That's why an awful lot of those laws were created in the first place.

I tried it. Well not quite abandoned but an unspoiled island with 3000 people. It was heaven for the first couple of years. By 7 years, groundhog day was making me look to the horizon for a passing ship. The sea, the surf and the blue skies, and the personal creativity are lovely, but after a while one needs some culture, generated by other people, with other ideas.

See the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place To Visit" on that theme. It may surprise you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit [wikipedia.org] "Henry "Rocky" Valentine is robbing a pawnshop after shooting a night watchman, but before he can get away he is shot by the police. He wakes up to find himself seemingly unharmed by the encounter and in the company of a pleasant individual named "Pip" who tells Rocky that he is his guide and has been instructed to grant him whatever he desires.... [Spoilers follow...

Many people on slashdot holding those kind of opinions self-label as libertarian, but you're correct in that it is not part of the libertarian "platform". However like "flower power" in the 60's, the libertarian movement tends to attract people under 25 who are well-meaning but very naive about the human condition. They tend to believe all people are basically decent people and will naturally "get along withe each other" if only government would stop doing "stuff". This is simply false, without larger societies humans will revert to their natural tribalism, the alpha male in each extend family will rise (sink?) to the status of warlord. What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one. I'm not sure what it says about the US but both movements arose and are strongest in the US.

During the late 60's, early 70's the hippies leaving the city to join communes in the country was one of the largest, if not the largest, internal US mass migrations of all time. Most of the communes fell apart quickly, people simply walked/ran away when the alpha members of the group turned it into a personality cult and started using and abusing everyone else for pleasure and profit. Very few lasted more than 2yrs, about the time it takes to truly realize that living with other people, (even like minded people), entails copious amounts of compromise + confrontation (politics).

Simply put evolution has designed our minds to live in tribal societies numbering between 100-200, all other tribes (even tribes of chimps) were universally seen as sub-human, xenophobia is still alive and kicking today because in geological terms evolution is still just playing with the idea of civilization for primates.

... like "flower power" in the 60's, the libertarian movement tends to attract people under 25 who are well-meaning but very naive about the human condition. They tend to believe all people are basically decent people and will naturally "get along withe each other" if only government would stop doing "stuff". This is simply false, without larger societies humans will revert to their natural tribalism, the alpha male in each extend family will rise (sink?) to the status of warlord. What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.......

Simply put evolution has designed our minds to live in tribal societies numbering between 100-200, all other tribes (even tribes of chimps) were universally seen as sub-human, xenophobia is still alive and kicking today because in geological terms evolution is still just playing with the idea of civilization for primates.

Libertarians are people who have never ceased being teenagers and seeing beyond their own personal needs and desires, they have no expectations at all about other people's behaviour as they do not think of it at all. They are permanently stuck in the 'me now generation' like a broken record and they quite simply cannot conceive of a society based upon that principle because it is beyond their understanding, hence their desire for it.

Of course never forget evolution does not stop, so human evolution, driv

Libertarians are people who have never ceased being teenagers and seeing beyond their own personal needs and desires, they have no expectations at all about other people's behaviour as they do not think of it at all. They are permanently stuck in the 'me now generation' like a broken record and they quite simply cannot conceive of a society based upon that principle because it is beyond their understanding, hence their desire for it.

You've obviously never actually known many. Instead of making a sweeping stereotype, maybe you could act unlike those you accusations you've made above, and learn something.

Your right to life and right to control over your own property has served you reasonably well so far I hope.

I have a mortgage. I have no right to my property - in reality. I'm permitted to live here by the bank so long as I continue to serve. My right to life is completely subjective to anyone elses whim and my ability to defend myself. That's kind of my point, no rights or laws stop human nature. Any discouragement of an action by law and rights is worked around by those entities who wish to do so.

Also, rights and laws are subjective. One man's fish is another man's poisson.

I have a mortgage. I have no right to my property - in reality. I'm permitted to live here by the bank so long as I continue to serve.

Well that just means that it's not actually your property, but the bank's. In whole or in part. But presumably you do have possessions that you bought outright?

My right to life is completely subjective to anyone elses whim and my ability to defend myself.

No it's not. The fact that someone else might transgress your rights (and hopefully incur punishment for doing so) does not mean you don't have rights. And in the general course of things the right serves us well. Few people are murdered. Imagine how many more would be killed were there not a government/police to support your right. It's no so hard t

"Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good:"

I would guess then that you are not in favour of public education for k-12, universal heathcare, or government run power & water companies. Just some of the things, of which to live without, would to me be a distopia already.

I think most libertarians will find that the things that society collectively taxes and pays for, roads, sewers, schools, b

Too many people forget the second part. That's what avoids the tyranny of the majority. The majority can make whatever laws they want, so long as those laws don't infringe on the rights of a minority. For example, in the US, no majority can pass a law that legalizes slavery, as that violates the rights of minorities.

All too often I see US citizens squawking about "majority rule!" when the courts uphold the rights of a minority. They should know better; without minorit

No you are wrong."Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good: rules about drugs, prostitution, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and yes, wearing clothes. "Let's tear this apart one by one.

Basically the character submits to a control system that he has no reason to trust except for that his tour guide is an easy lay. He is able to opt out of this system, but he is still walking around with a kill switch in his neck.

I don't know if that's the feeling Marshall intended. The first half with it being a cautionary tale of citizens ending up as wards of a robo-state seems to make enough sense (he makes it seem dystopian), but having this crime-free cont

Eventually, your kind will attempt to invade with real-world laws. You are part of a giant, hyper organism whose parts, humans, can be directed by data streams that "warm your heart" and "make you feel like a Good Person".

Actually, I think the rest of you will tear yourselves apart. Good riddance to thieving rubbish. Too bad you will wind up killing everyone on the island in your vain attempts to deflect the blame for the complete and total failure of your policies. Nothing like a nice war against the enemy of the week to stop the proles from discovering that the king can't command the tide.

Absolutely. You probably want to stay where you are, what with the wars and pestilence and everything. Don't feel the need to hurry back. You could send a postcard if you like. We'll be sure to read it. If you don't get a reply, well it probably got lost in the post or something.

It's much more likely to be a coup from within, reason being "your kind" are also humans. The bit that "your kind" haven't worked out yet is that the ability to discern the folly of humans in large groups does not imply the ability to avoid it.

We understand this. You don't.

"My kind" get the hyper-organism thing, it's not created by "my kind", it spontaneously forms whenever a human society grows past a handful of related individuals. It's only when "your kind" fully realize "your kind" are not immune [prisonexp.org] that "your kind" will start to un [cracked.com]

This is only the natural progression of things, a group of people (company) seeks freedom from what they view as restrictive intervention in their lives and dreams of striking out to find a new land of freedom where they can create their 'utopian' society. The only difference now is that it's the merchant class seeking to break away from the state, instead of a new state seeking to break away from a monarchy and so on and so forth. Ultimately any independent group of people will start to run into the same p

We have just announced on the Official Google Blog that we will soon retire Google Island (the actual date is August 18, 2013). We know Island has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go. We're sad too.

There are two simple reasons for this: usage of Google Island has declined, and as a company we're pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, we're providing a three-month sunset period so you have sufficient time to find an alternative island. If you want to retain your Island data, you can do so through Google Takeout.

We have just announced on the Official Google Blog that we will soon retire Google Island (the actual date is August 18, 2013). We know Island has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go. We're sad too.

Just scroll right down and you'll read a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip,
That started at Google IO,
and it involves a ship.

Some fool was a dreamer of sailing men,
All naked -- That's for sure!
"They'd 'innovate'; No, it won't be gay",
Said the blogger du jour -- A blogger"du jour"!

The commenters started getting rough,
The idyllic ship was tossed,
It wrought imagery of a lawless few:
Your privacy would be lost -- Yar! "privacy wood" be "lost!"

The ship made port at a private pier:
A Google-owned desert isle,
With Googliaaaaans!
The Blogger too...
Some billionaires,
(but no wives),
Home "movie" stars,
Terms of Service-er, and
Hairy Mans!
Here on Googlian's Isle!

Same with Talk vs. FaceTime/iMessage. Google wants you to use their tools so they can target ads, Apple wants to sell you hardware and time you to their ecosystem. It would be cool for Google to give people the option of paying for the nice open tools with no tracking or information gathering. You can opt out of most of it already though.

How you equate the human need to explore with this self indulgent shite is beyond me. Google is a marketing company, end of. That they've managed to make the "don't be evil" tag stick in the face of their persistent attempts to violate every human convention about privacy in the name of gross lucre merely means they are a good marketing company.

They're an Advertising company that leverages technology to stay on top of critical new marketing trends.

The days when Google wasn't an Advertising business ended many years ago. Any highly successful entity that involves a significant amount of advertising is quickly flooded by a special kind of people. Let's not pretend otherwise.

All you need is around $75 000 from 100 000 people; that gives you $7.5 billion. 50, 000 acre islands are surprisingly cheap (10 -50 million); if you build shelters in a mass produced fashion or even low cost sky rise you could get the price down to around 25 000 a home (maybe 30 000 with shipping) call it $3 billion; a billion dollars gets you a lot of wind/tidal power; internet cost depends where you get the island but should be under a billion for a submarine cable; you can grow enough vegetables to supp